| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
| Date: | 2014-11-20 00:52:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZTFHcfGSQRNBWKeZxXo6W9Wj4pBSGHbsL1xDV778+5cYQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> Attached is V1.4.
Someone mentioned to me privately that they weren't sure that the
question of whether or not RETURNING only projected actually inserted
tuples was the right one. Also, I think someone else mentioned this a
few months back. I'd like to address this question directly sooner
rather than later, and so I've added a note on the Wiki page in
relation to this [1]. It's a possible area of concern at this point.
Anyway, it wouldn't require much implementation effort to change the
behavior so that updated tuples were also projected. In addition, we
might also consider the necessity of inventing a mechanism to make
apparent whether the tuple was inserted or updated. The discussion
needs to happen first, though.
[1] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/UPSERT#RETURNING_behavior
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-11-20 01:25:30 | Re: New Event Trigger: table_rewrite |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-11-20 00:34:08 | Re: RLS with check option - surprised design |